Q003 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0043 — Sycophancy Vocabulary
Run	2026-04-01
Query	Q003

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Criteria defined before searching	Yes — searched for published identification of the vocabulary gap and active taxonomy efforts
Criteria remained stable	Yes
Criteria applied consistently	Yes

Notes: Clear eligibility: published research, reports, or organizational initiatives addressing the AI terminology gap.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — searched for gap identification, taxonomy efforts, and glossary initiatives
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searched for both recognition and non-recognition evidence
All results dispositioned	Yes — 20 results dispositioned (4 selected, 16 rejected)
Source diversity achieved	Yes — Australian, EU, US sources from academia, government, and professional associations

Notes: Search covered the main research databases and organizational sources for AI governance terminology work.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes
Evidence typed consistently	Yes
ACH matrix applied	Yes
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Notes: Consistent evaluation across all 4 sources.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — the absence of voices defending the status quo is noted
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes
Gaps acknowledged	Yes

Notes: No source was found defending the current terminology fragmentation as appropriate. This could reflect either genuine consensus that it is a problem, or a bias in the search toward sources that frame fragmentation negatively.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Proposes 5 solutions, glossary excludes sycophancy	Confirmed: 5 solutions listed; minimal glossary focused on governance terms	Yes
SRC03	53 threats, sycophancy absent	Confirmed: 9 domains, 53 sub-threats; sycophancy not mentioned	Yes
SRC04	100+ terms, no sycophancy	Confirmed per WebFetch analysis	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: All claims verified against sources.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The meta-question nature of Q003 (has the gap been recognized?) has a clear evidential answer: yes at the broad level, no at the sycophancy-specific level. This finding is well-supported and not influenced by the researcher's biases.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Publication incentive: The finding that sycophancy is excluded from all identified taxonomy efforts could be framed dramatically. The assessment maintains a descriptive tone.
Anti-sycophancy bias: Could lead to framing the exclusion as more problematic than it is. Mitigated by acknowledging that taxonomy work must prioritize and sycophancy may simply not yet be a priority.
Blind spot: The researcher may not appreciate that governance professionals have legitimate reasons for prioritizing other terms — sycophancy may be viewed as a model engineering concern rather than a governance concern by those communities.